Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Chasan

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Chasan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. I cannot find anything besides trivial mentions. Prod declined by originating author, who appears to be an SPA. Ray^Talk 03:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 03:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks OK to me. Founding a company that goes public is already a bid for notablility IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

And if anyone happens to disagree with you on that, this information can be included in the article about said company because being listed at NASDAQ is a sign of a company's notability thus making the company suitable for inclusion. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not that I am unbiased, but if you think iTunes and iPods changed the face of music, Emusic was the pioneer. It was that first company in history to sell digital music files and mp3 players. Mark Chasan was the founder and CEO when he started the company in 1995. There is plenty of verification in well respected periodicals, SEC filings and even an article in Wikipedia mentioning Mark Chasan as the founder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.70.60 (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question at hand is whether he is notable - in the sense of having been covered in a significant way by reliable sources independent of the subject. A wikipedia article, specifically, the one under discussion, does not count - that reasoning would be a bit too circular. Ray^Talk 06:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is one article that mentions his name which is verifiable. If more citations like these can be found maybe it can be fixed and kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cablespy (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 06:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see anything problematic with this article.Daviderudit (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.